STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LARRY DEAN HOUSER AND DOUGLAS LEE KESSLER, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appealed a trial court's order suppressing evidence from a search warrant, contending the warrant was valid despite minor defects in the address and missing photographs. The appellate court reversed, holding that the detailed physical description of the residence was sufficient to identify the property and that the confidential informant's information provided adequate probable cause.
The search warrant was valid. The address error did not invalidate the warrant because the detailed physical description of the residence was sufficient to identify the property and led officers to the correct house. The missing photographs were surplusage in light of the specific description. The confidential informant's information provided sufficient probable cause because the warrant contained information showing the informant's reliability.
[1] A search warrant is not rendered invalid by a minor inaccuracy in the street address if the description of the premises is otherwise sufficiently specific to identify the…
[2] Photographs attached to a search warrant are considered surplusage and their absence does not invalidate the warrant when the description of the premises is otherwise suf…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The description of the residence was sufficient to lead and indeed did lead the officers directly to the house to be searched.”
Establishes the court's holding that detailed physical descriptions can cure address errors in search warrants
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers executed a search warrant at a residence in Tampa. The warrant listed the address as 6815 South Wall Street, but the actual residence searche…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confidential Informant Reliability cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.
The state contends that the trial court erred in granting appellees’ motion to suppress. We agree and reverse.
After a hearing, the trial court found the search warrant contained several defects: (1) the residence to be searched was stated as 6815 South Wall Street instead of 6813 South Wall Street which was actually searched; (2) the photographs of the residence were not attached to the warrant as was asserted in the informant’s affidavit; and (3) the statements of the confidential informant were uncorroborated and, therefore, there was no probable cause to justify the issuance of the warrant. The description of the property was recited in the warrant as follows: ONE STORY CONCRETE BLOCK RE-SIDNECE (sic) BEING WHITE IN COLOR AND HAYING LIGHT BLUE TRIM ON WINDOW LEDGES AND ROOF MOLDING. SAID RESIDENCE HAVING IMITATION BRICK ON LOWER HALF OF WALL FACING EAST. SAID RESIDENCE TO BE SEARCHED HAVING AN OPEN CARPORT ON SOUTH SIDE OF STRUCTURE, AND SUPPORTED BY WHITE BEAMS. THAT SAID BEAM LOCATED ON SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID RESIDENCE HAVING NUMERALS 6815, BLACK IN COLOR AND AFFIXED IN A VERTICAL POSITION. ABOVE DESCRIBED RESIDENCE HAS A FOUR FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE SURROUNDING SAID PROPERTY.
MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE RESIDENCE TO BE SEARCHED HAVING AN ADDRESS OF 6815 SOUTH WALL STREET, TAMPA, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING THE FOURTH RESIDENCE ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH WALL STREET, NORTH OF PRESCOTT AVENUE.
It is conceded that the address is incorrect. Nevertheless, we believe that this mistake does not render the search warrant invalid. The description of the residence was sufficient to lead and indeed did lead the officers directly to the house to be searched. See State v. Gallo, 279 So. 2d 71 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). The same reasoning can be applied to the absence of the photographs. In light of the specific description of the residence contained in the warrant, they would be mere surplusage.
In State v. Wolff, 310 So. 2d 729 (Fla.1975) it was held that where the warrant contains information showing reliability of the confidential informant, his testimony standing alone can provide sufficient probable cause to uphold the validity of the search warrant. Since in this case the warrant did contain information which showed reliability of the confidential informant there was sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant.
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
OTT and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carr v. State, 529 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ir.1979); but compare Shedd, supra. An inaccuracy in the warrant, such as an incorrect address or apartment number, does not invalidate the warrant if the place to be searched is otherwise sufficiently identified in the warrant. See State v. Houser, 364 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d [*807] DCA 1978); Gallo, supra. See also, Sklaroff, supra. In the present case the warrant contained detailed directions to the small apartment building in which appellant resided and described the apartment to be searched as the one occup…
-
Swain v. State, 670 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…rection made by the police officer is improper and invalid. However, we believe a proper analysis should not end here. If the warrant can stand on its own, absent the corrections, then the denial of the motion to suppress is proper. State v. Houser, 364 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). [*188] In the instant case, the warrant has a clear and detailed description of the building and of the location of the apartment to be searched. Consequently, we find that the technical error in describing the location of the bu…
-
Baum v. State, 404 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…allegations in both the affidavit and the search warrant support the trial court’s implicit finding that the informer purchased the drugs only in apartment number eight. See also State v. Heape, 369 So. 2d 386 (Fla.2d DCA 1979), and State v. Houser, 364 So. 2d 823 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). AFFIRMED. ERVIN, SHAW and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Wolff, 310 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1975)
- State v. Gallo, 279 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)